The committee experiment failed

[dtgold88]

Okay, BUT when playing scrabble, do you consider it cheating to use a website to input your letters for crazy word combos or not? Is it more fair that you should know the words without computer aid?

Oh my. Now I think - really, hope - that you are just messing with me.

 

[dtgold88]

Answer my recent reply to you, im not goina "debate" with someone who does not understand statistics (not the ability to read stats but the actual math)

what is your reply and the question you would like answered? Rational people like myself will answer any and all direct questions (apologies if you asked one and I missed it).

 

[dtgold88]

When that happens i will let you know.

You have not kicked anyones ass nor have you used facts and reason. If you understood simple math you would realize that any system that uses 1 game of uncommon opponents across 130 teams will never be accurate to determine a champion in a tournament. That is just a fact. Play 5 games against each team and make every team play the same teams then you may h ave an argument for basing it 100% off wins and losses, that isnt even possible though.

You are maming my point.....this is why more teams and not less is needed. Not enough games are played among the top teams to "know" who the best teams are.

I knew you'd come around.

 

[dtgold88]

You keep saying "facts and logic"you have yet to employ any

Tell me what here that was not a fact

*Before the CCGs, the committee deemed Wisconsin better than Bama in the year we discussed
*Wisky played in their CCG and lost
*Bama stayed home and passed Wisky because OSU took care of business for them
*Wisky would have been better off (at least compared to Bama) had they not played.

*NFL allows 12 of 32 teams into playoffs
*CFB 4 of 128
*Far more games among top teams in NFL as well as common opponents to get a better gauge who the better teams might be

 

[NU_FTW]

what is your reply and the question you would like answered? Rational people like myself will answer any and all direct questions (apologies if you asked one and I missed it).

when playing scrabble, do you consider it cheating to use a website to input your letters for crazy word combos or not? Is it more fair that you should know the words without computer aid?

 

[dtgold88]

There is no need to autobid and no need to expand, absolutely no need. If you like playoffs and that sort of garbage the FCS already does that sort of "entertainment" i suggest you just switch brands you watch....

There is a reason MANY college football fans dislike the NFL (it is extremely boring when teams can lose and not care)

You really are narcissistic aren't ya little fella?

First, though, I never said they "needed" to have CCG winners included and go to 8 teams. It just happens to be my preference. You prefer 4 teams and status quo. OK. No need to have a meltdown.

 

[NU_FTW]

You are maming my point.....this is why more teams and not less is needed. Not enough games are played among the top teams to "know" who the best teams are.

I knew you'd come around.

No clearly you dont understand the point then. When you have 130 teams if you put them in a tournament the best team is far from likely to win the tournament when it is only played in 1 and done games.

We dont need to expand the playoffs because it will dilute it to garbage (like the fcs and nfl)

Statistics prove my point, it is a literal fact

 

[NU_FTW]

Tell me what here that was not a fact

*Before the CCGs, the committee deemed Wisconsin better than Bama in the year we discussed
*Wisky played in their CCG and lost
*Bama stayed home and passed Wisky because OSU took care of business for them
*Wisky would have been better off (at least compared to Bama) had they not played.

*NFL allows 12 of 32 teams into playoffs
*CFB 4 of 128
*Far more games among top teams in NFL as well as common opponents to get a better gauge who the better teams might be

NFL is garbage.

Wisconsin would would have gotten schooled................ and already lost their "playoff" game in the CCG....

The Committee got it right.

 

[dtgold88]

when playing scrabble, do you consider it cheating to use a website to input your letters for crazy word combos or not? Is it more fair that you should know the words without computer aid?

yes and yes

what do I win?

Here's one for you......Is it easier to tell who the best teams are when they play against each other and have common opponents to compare teams or when few if any top teams play each other and have very few common opponents?

Let's make it easy and see if you can answer like I did

A) yes, more common opponents and head to head makes it easier
B) no, it doesn't make a difference. I just know.

as to your CFB vs. NFL analogy you get there are some who like them both quite a bit, right, and have no agenda towards one or the other like you?

How do ya like the matchups of the top teams vs. FCS teams in CFB? Real barnburners, right? Riveting competition.

 

[NU_FTW]

You really are narcissistic aren't ya little fella?

First, though, I never said they "needed" to have CCG winners included and go to 8 teams. It just happens to be my preference. You prefer 4 teams and status quo. OK. No need to have a meltdown.

I prefer 2, but the case was made that sometimes the difference between #2 and #3 can be razor thin, it is acceptable to bring in #3 to be fair but in most years #4 isnt even close to #1 and #2, thus #5-130 have no business having a shot at 1 or 2 which was the entire point of the 4 team format in the first place.


This was never about being more inclusive of more teams, it was making sure the best 1 and 2 team squared off for the championship.

You clearly dont get it

 

[CJH9972]

When that happens i will let you know.

You have not kicked anyones ass nor have you used facts and reason. If you understood simple math you would realize that any system that uses 1 game of uncommon opponents across 130 teams will never be accurate to determine a champion in a tournament. That is just a fact. Play 5 games against each team and make every team play the same teams then you may h ave an argument for basing it 100% off wins and losses, that isnt even possible though.

A champion is simply the winner of first place in a competition. There is no standard of accuracy involved in determining a champion. Besides that, pretending there were, how does having the top teams playing fewer games against each other and simply judge them by opinion based on how they fare versus very different schedules produce a more accurate result?

 

[NU_FTW]

yes and yes

what do I win?

Here's one for you......Is it easier to tell who the best teams are when they play against each other and have common opponents to compare teams or when few if any top teams play each other and have very few common opponents?

Let's make it easy and see if you can answer like I did

A) yes, more common opponents and head to head makes it easier
B) no, it doesn't make a difference. I just know.

In College football not enough games are played to use any form of transitive property, 1 and done games does not lend itself to transitive properties at all. If you were to have every team play every team 5 times and go with best of 5 to determine the winner then that would be different. Due to the physical nature of College football, the lack of player compensation, and the fact they are kids there to learn, a series in college football would be nearly impossible to justify just so you could have your automatic qualifying criteria.

It is 100% a fact the more teams in a tournament, of 1 and done games, the less likely the best team wins. Facts and statistics prove this one out.

 

[dtgold88]

No clearly you dont understand the point then. When you have 130 teams if you put them in a tournament the best team is far from likely to win the tournament when it is only played in 1 and done games.

We dont need to expand the playoffs because it will dilute it to garbage (like the fcs and nfl)

Statistics prove my point, it is a literal fact

Great...if I ever tell you all 130 teams should make the playoffs let me know.

If you ask again why you are irrational you continue to prove it with comments like that one.

 

[NU_FTW]

A champion is simply the winner of first place in a competition. There is no standard of accuracy involved in determining a champion. Besides that, pretending there were, how does having the top teams playing fewer games against each other and simply judge them by opinion based on how they fare versus very different schedules produce a more accurate result?

That is exactly why the human element is required, it is exactly what makes FBS College Football better than anything on earth

 

[dtgold88]

NFL is garbage.

Wisconsin would would have gotten schooled................ and already lost their "playoff" game in the CCG....

The Committee got it right.

OK, but they should have gotten their shot as the committee did not have wisky ahead of Bama before that game.

In 2015 I thought OSU was a much better team than MSU. But MSU beat them on the field. They got smashed by Bama. Doesn't mean the committee got it wrong.

 

[NU_FTW]

Great...if I ever tell you all 130 teams should make the playoffs let me know.

If you ask again why you are irrational you continue to prove it with comments like that one.

You are failing to grasp the point. The more teams in a 1 and done tournament the less likely the BEST team will actually win it all. That is a fact

 

[NU_FTW]

OK, but they should have gotten their shot as the committee did not have wisky ahead of Bama before that game.

In 2015 I thought OSU was a much better team than MSU. But MSU beat them on the field. They got smashed by Bama. Doesn't mean the committee got it wrong.

Wisconsin did get their shot, in teh CCG, they played themselves out of contention

 

[dtgold88]

No clearly you dont understand the point then. When you have 130 teams if you put them in a tournament the best team is far from likely to win the tournament when it is only played in 1 and done games.

We dont need to expand the playoffs because it will dilute it to garbage (like the fcs and nfl)

Statistics prove my point, it is a literal fact

you also should learn how to use the term, "literal", correctly.

 

[NU_FTW]

you also should learn how to use the term, "literal", correctly.

i know how to use the word, you keep taking me saying the word fact as some sort of fiction, so i thought if i emphasized that it is a FACT, Literally, perhaps your pea brain could grasp the concept.

 

[dtgold88]

In College football not enough games are played to use any form of transitive property, 1 and done games does not lend itself to transitive properties at all. If you were to have every team play every team 5 times and go with best of 5 to determine the winner then that would be different. Due to the physical nature of College football, the lack of player compensation, and the fact they are kids there to learn, a series in college football would be nearly impossible to justify just so you could have your automatic qualifying criteria.

It is 100% a fact the more teams in a tournament, of 1 and done games, the less likely the best team wins. Facts and statistics prove this one out.

Long answer when all that was required for your answer was A or B.

If anyone ever claims all 130 teams should make the playoff (hell, even if they go over 9 in this conversation) feel free to make this argument. we are talking 8 of 130. Not 130 of 130. For someone who thinks he knows so much about math and statistics I would think you would know there's a difference....a large one.